What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404709 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5404709?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13205956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404709 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5404709?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13205956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404709 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404709 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry-Schedule 1A f RTA	$1,000.00	33. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because Refer t…
General damages: Unlawful entry-s48 of the RTA	$500.00	General damages: Unlawful entry-s48 of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404709 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry-Schedule 1A f RTA	$1,000.00	33. I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because Refer t…
General damages: Unlawful entry-s48 of the RTA	$500.00	General damages: Unlawful entry-s48 of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts As Agent For Yitan Trustee Limited Kevin Zhao must pay [The tenant/s] $1,528.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 25 February 2026. [The male tenant] attended via video on [The female tenant’s] mobile phone device as he is out of New Zealand currently and could not appear by telephone. The Tenancy Tribunal hearing room does not have AVL equipment.
The tenants are seeking general damages, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee, following the end of their tenancy on 21 December 2025.
The landlord seeks dismissal of the tenant’s claims as it states that there has been no breach of its s48 obligations, and its entry was not unlawful. It is also seeking reimbursement of its application fee.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The Parties Claims Did the landlord’s agent unlawfully enter the premise on 25 November 2025 and should the tenants unlawful entry claim be dismissed?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the tenancy agreement, signed by the parties, the two tenants have each supplied a Gmail email address as their addresses for service. An address for service is required by law to be included in the tenancy agreement and to be used for the service of formal and important written communication such as a landlord’s intention to use its access rights to enter the tenants’ home. Email addresses for service are also usually also contained in the bond lodgement form. Neither party submitted a copy of the bond lodgement form in evidence for the hearing and could not locate it during the hearing. Therefore, I rely on the two tenancy agreement email addresses for service for the tenants and any written variation to those two addresses for service.
On 23 November 2025, the landlord sent written notice to the tenants of a routine property inspection to be carried out on 25 November 2025.This written notice was emailed to an address that ends in qq.com.
The female tenant confirmed she had to use qq.com email address from April to 26 July 2025, while she was in China seeking treatment. She could not access her usual Gmail address due to communication controls in Mainland China. The male tenant confirmed he was still in New Zealand during this period and had access to his Gmail address for service and he could have easily passed on any information to the female tenant that she was unable to receive on her Gmail address for that short period.
The female tenant produced a message that she had sent to the property manager explaining why she was emailing him from the qq.com email while she was in China. She also produced an email that confirms the date of her return to New Zealand and a copy of her airline tickets. Her expectation was that the landlord continued to use the Gmail addresses for service in the tenancy agreement but understood that she may not get any emails from her Gmail address until she returned to New Zealand. She stated that the property manager and the two tenants had a WeChat based group chat that the property manager could communicate anything urgent to her on and he was welcome to email her on the qq.com address while she was in China. None of the communications the parties produce can be held to be variations of the tenancy agreement email addresses for service for the tenants.
A landlord generally must use the email address(es) for service specified in the tenancy agreement. If the tenants have not formally updated this information in writing within 10 working days, as required, the landlord should continue to use the original address to ensure legal service. Using a new email without confirmation makes the service invalid. If the tenants are not responding to the original email address(es) for service, the safest legal approach is to send documents to both the old email and a new one if it is known, or to use physical service methods as a backup. The landlord did not do this. The landlord used a temporary address the female tenant provided to it when she was in China and then ceased using the other tenant’s Gmail address for service, even though it knew he was in New Zealand and could access that address.
In its defence the landlord stated that the female tenant had continued to communicate with it sometimes on the qq.com address after her return to New Zealand, but not exclusively, and therefore it was entitled to rely on that being her email address for service because the tenant had continued to use it to communicate with the landlord after she had returned from China, albeit that she also used her other Gmail address as well.
I am concerned the landlord may be confusing recent changes to issuing formal notice to a tenant of the landlord having made an application to the Tribunal relating to that tenancy and the application having been made up to two years after the tenancy has ended (See s91A of the RTA). Section 91A (2)of the RTA provides that “if the landlord files the application no later than 2 years after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, by transmission to an email address given by the tenant as an address for service or by transmission to an email address that the tenant has used to communicate with the landlord, or otherwise supplied to the landlord in writing, within the 2 years before the application”.
There was no evidence provided by the landlord that it: a. Emailed the 23 November 2025 notice of routine inspection to the male tenant on his Gmail address for service; b. Emailed the 23 November 2025 notice of routine inspection to the female tenant on her Gmail address for service; c. That the property manager had notified the tenants on the WeChat group chat that these notices had been sent to both or one of the tenants email addresses for service (notice to one tenant is deemed in law to be notice to all tenants in relation to a landlord exercising its s48 of the RTA access rights); d. That the female tenant had given formal written notice to the landlord varying her email address for service to the qq.com address.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The landlord then compounded this unlawful act (failure to give proper/lawful notice) by attempting to gain access to the premise when the tenants had expressly confirmed they did not give consent to the property manager entering the premise without lawful notice to carry out a property inspection.
When the property manager was told the tenants had not received the email notice sent to the qq.com address, that they (and the premise) were not in a state/condition that would allow them to feel comfortable granting him entry (the house was not presentable enough for a surprise inspection, the male tenant was in bed asleep and the female tenant was recovering from a hand injury and was feeling to vulnerable to deal with the inspection at that time. She was caught by surprise and found it hard to communicate her extreme level of distress when the property manager opened the door and tried to enter the first time. The property manager then waited in the garden for a while, the tenants sent a message to him asking him again not to undertake the inspection. In response the property manager used his key to try and enter the premise a second time. He says he did not receive the text message until after his second attempt at unlawful entry. His evidence confirms he received the text message before his second unlawful entry.
When the tenant tried to stop the property manager fully opening the door, his leg got jammed in the door. The property manager confirmed he then used this opportunity to commence discussing rent arrears with the tenants, trying to get them to agree to a repayment plan and telling them he was on their side and wanted to resolve issues.
The female tenant in her evidence described her terror at trying to stop him entering the premise a second time when she had asked him not to do so, and her distress at him insisting on completing the inspection as he was “too busy to come back” and then trying to discuss rent arrears in the middle of the chaos that ensued.
Eventually, the property manager agreed to return the following day to undertake the property inspection, and the tenants reasonably accommodated this, even though they had technically not received the required minimum 48 hours’ notice of this new inspection date.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that an experience property manager should be conversant with and comply with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and its access rights and service provisions. Therefore, I am satisfied that the two attempts to enter the tenants’ home without proper notice that the tenants have proven, on the balance of probabilities, are breaches that I can only reasonably find to be intentional unlawful acts. The landlord’s claim for me to dismiss the tenants’ unlawful entry claim is also dismissed as it has failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities.
I award the tenants general damages of $500.00 for the stress and inconvenience they suffered because of these two breaches
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay $1,000.00 in exemplary damages (two thirds of the maximum penalty available) because Refer to s48(2) (d) and Schedule 1A of the RTA): a. the property manager knew the tenants had not given him consent to enter the premise but did so as it was convenient for him to get the routine property inspection done at the time he had it scheduled, despite having not served the tenants proper notice of the date and time of the intended property inspection; b. the tenants suffered the stress of knowing the landlord had tried to enter their without consent or lawful right to do so, when one was asleep in bed and the other was feeling injured, vulnerable, shocked and frightened at a man trying to enter the premise when she was alone downstairs. They had also experienced two breaches of the tenants’ privacy; c. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the stress and breach of privacy caused; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their right of entry obligations. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its claims, it application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have been wholly successful in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404709 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404709 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions